Suman Singh And Others vs Mahaveer Tarachand Bafana And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 88 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 686 of 2007
 
Appellant :- Suman Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- Mahaveer Tarachand Bafana And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Rai,Vishnu Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Chandra Naik
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 29.1.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.306 of 1999 (Suman Singh and others vs. Mahaveer Tarachand Bafana and others) awarding a sum of Rs.6,86,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an accident took place on 13.9.1999 wherein Sanjai Singh, who was self employed person earning Rs.3,86,495/- per annum, met with accidental death leaving behind him his widow wife of 22 years, daughter of one and half years and parents aged about 55 and 50 years. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.5,000/- per month did not add any amount towards future loss of income granted multiplier of 17 and granted only  Rs. 6,000/- towards non pecuniary damages. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should be 40% of the income in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is further submitted that the multiplier of 17 awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also submitted that the amount for non-pecuniary damages and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd as the deceased died leaving behind him his widow, minor daughter and parents. Leaned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.). 

5. As against this, Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the income of the deceased does not require any enhancement as the income which has not been proved cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 

6. Having heard the counsels for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 13.9.1999 causing death of Sanjai Singh who was 24 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has considered the income tax return which was for Rs. 61,000/- and therefore,certain additions can be made to his income. We consider his income Rs.8,000/- per month but are unable to accept the submission of counsel for the appellant that his income should be considered to be Rs.3,86,495/- as the deceased was self employed person. We are even supported in our view by the decision of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186. 

7. As far as addition of future prospects is concerned, the deceased being below 40 years of age, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The multiplier applicable would be 18 and Rs.1,00,000/- requires to be granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it would be 1/3rd as the deceased was survived by his widow, one daughter and parents. 

8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: 

i. Income: Rs.8,000/- 

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.3200/- 

iii. Total income : Rs.8000 + 3200 = Rs.11,200/- 

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.7467/- 

v. Annual income : Rs.7467 x 12 = Rs.89,604/- 

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.89,604 x 18 = Rs.16,12,872/- 

viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/- 

ix. Total compensation : Rs.17,12,872/-

9. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 

10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 

11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record be transmitted to Tribunal. 

12. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

13. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount.

14. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.

15. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this old matter decided.

Order Date :- 9.2.2022

S.S.